Daily Papers

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems typically rely on a single fixed retriever, despite growing evidence that no single retriever performs optimally across all query types. In this paper, we explore a query routing approach that dynamically selects from a pool of retrievers based on the query, using both train-free heuristics and learned routing models. We frame routing as a learning-to-rank (LTR) problem and introduce LTRR, a framework that learns to rank retrievers by their expected utility gain to downstream LLM performance. Our experiments, conducted on synthetic QA data with controlled query type variations, show that routing-based RAG systems can outperform the best single-retriever-based systems. Performance gains are especially pronounced in models trained with the Answer Correctness (AC) metric and with pairwise learning approaches, especially with XGBoost. We also observe improvements in generalization to out-of-distribution queries. As part of the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG challenge, our submitted system demonstrated the practical viability of our approach, achieving competitive performance in both answer correctness and faithfulness. These findings highlight the importance of both training methodology and metric selection in query routing for RAG systems.

An abundance of datasets and availability of reliable evaluation metrics have resulted in strong progress in factoid question answering (QA). This progress, however, does not easily transfer to the task of long-form QA, where the goal is to answer questions that require in-depth explanations. The hurdles include (i) a lack of high-quality data, and (ii) the absence of a well-defined notion of the answer's quality. In this work, we address these problems by (i) releasing a novel dataset and a task that we call ASQA (Answer Summaries for Questions which are Ambiguous); and (ii) proposing a reliable metric for measuring performance on ASQA. Our task focuses on factoid questions that are ambiguous, that is, have different correct answers depending on interpretation. Answers to ambiguous questions should synthesize factual information from multiple sources into a long-form summary that resolves the ambiguity. In contrast to existing long-form QA tasks (such as ELI5), ASQA admits a clear notion of correctness: a user faced with a good summary should be able to answer different interpretations of the original ambiguous question. We use this notion of correctness to define an automated metric of performance for ASQA. Our analysis demonstrates an agreement between this metric and human judgments, and reveals a considerable gap between human performance and strong baselines.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

In the automatic evaluation of generative question answering (GenQA) systems, it is difficult to assess the correctness of generated answers due to the free-form of the answer. Especially, widely used n-gram similarity metrics often fail to discriminate the incorrect answers since they equally consider all of the tokens. To alleviate this problem, we propose KPQA-metric, a new metric for evaluating the correctness of GenQA. Specifically, our new metric assigns different weights to each token via keyphrase prediction, thereby judging whether a generated answer sentence captures the key meaning of the reference answer. To evaluate our metric, we create high-quality human judgments of correctness on two GenQA datasets. Using our human-evaluation datasets, we show that our proposed metric has a significantly higher correlation with human judgments than existing metrics. The code is available at https://github.com/hwanheelee1993/KPQA.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current evaluation metrics to determine answer equivalence (AE) often do not align with human judgments, particularly more verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big: LLM-based scorers can correlate better with human judges, but this task has only been tested on limited QA datasets, and even when available, update of the model is limited because LLMs are large and often expensive. We rectify both of these issues by providing clear and consistent guidelines for evaluating AE in machine QA adopted from professional human QA contests. We also introduce a combination of standard evaluation and a more efficient, robust, and lightweight discriminate AE classifier-based matching method (CFMatch, smaller than 1 MB), trained and validated to more accurately evaluate answer correctness in accordance with adopted expert AE rules that are more aligned with human judgments.

8 years after the visual question answering (VQA) task was proposed, accuracy remains the primary metric for automatic evaluation. VQA Accuracy has been effective so far in the IID evaluation setting. However, our community is undergoing a shift towards open-ended generative models and OOD evaluation. In this new paradigm, the existing VQA Accuracy metric is overly stringent and underestimates the performance of VQA systems. Thus, there is a need to develop more robust automatic VQA metrics that serve as a proxy for human judgment. In this work, we propose to leverage the in-context learning capabilities of instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) to build a better VQA metric. We formulate VQA evaluation as an answer-rating task where the LLM is instructed to score the accuracy of a candidate answer given a set of reference answers. We demonstrate the proposed metric better correlates with human judgment compared to existing metrics across several VQA models and benchmarks. We hope wide adoption of our metric will contribute to better estimating the research progress on the VQA task. We plan to release the evaluation code and collected human judgments.

The automatic generation of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) has the potential to reduce the time educators spend on student assessment significantly. However, existing evaluation metrics for MCQ generation, such as BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR, focus on the n-gram based similarity of the generated MCQ to the gold sample in the dataset and disregard their educational value. They fail to evaluate the MCQ's ability to assess the student's knowledge of the corresponding target fact. To tackle this issue, we propose a novel automatic evaluation metric, coined Knowledge Dependent Answerability (KDA), which measures the MCQ's answerability given knowledge of the target fact. Specifically, we first show how to measure KDA based on student responses from a human survey. Then, we propose two automatic evaluation metrics, KDA_disc and KDA_cont, that approximate KDA by leveraging pre-trained language models to imitate students' problem-solving behavior. Through our human studies, we show that KDA_disc and KDA_soft have strong correlations with both (1) KDA and (2) usability in an actual classroom setting, labeled by experts. Furthermore, when combined with n-gram based similarity metrics, KDA_disc and KDA_cont are shown to have a strong predictive power for various expert-labeled MCQ quality measures.

Common evaluation paradigms for language models focus on scoring single responses through accuracy metrics or proper scoring rules, failing to capture the full richness of a model's belief state. Recent work illustrates that language models hallucinate in-part because they are optimised to be good test-takers under binary scoring schemes that reward any answer over abstention. While this insight naturally leads to penalty-based approaches, they ignore crucial distinctions in how models distribute uncertainty, for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem, i.e., of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. DCS naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to DCS's variants and measuring performance on six language models reveals that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

Factual consistency is an essential quality of text summarization models in practical settings. Existing work in evaluating this dimension can be broadly categorized into two lines of research, entailment-based and question answering (QA)-based metrics, and different experimental setups often lead to contrasting conclusions as to which paradigm performs the best. In this work, we conduct an extensive comparison of entailment and QA-based metrics, demonstrating that carefully choosing the components of a QA-based metric, especially question generation and answerability classification, is critical to performance. Building on those insights, we propose an optimized metric, which we call QAFactEval, that leads to a 14% average improvement over previous QA-based metrics on the SummaC factual consistency benchmark, and also outperforms the best-performing entailment-based metric. Moreover, we find that QA-based and entailment-based metrics can offer complementary signals and be combined into a single metric for a further performance boost.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

The evaluation of question answering models compares ground-truth annotations with model predictions. However, as of today, this comparison is mostly lexical-based and therefore misses out on answers that have no lexical overlap but are still semantically similar, thus treating correct answers as false. This underestimation of the true performance of models hinders user acceptance in applications and complicates a fair comparison of different models. Therefore, there is a need for an evaluation metric that is based on semantics instead of pure string similarity. In this short paper, we present SAS, a cross-encoder-based metric for the estimation of semantic answer similarity, and compare it to seven existing metrics. To this end, we create an English and a German three-way annotated evaluation dataset containing pairs of answers along with human judgment of their semantic similarity, which we release along with an implementation of the SAS metric and the experiments. We find that semantic similarity metrics based on recent transformer models correlate much better with human judgment than traditional lexical similarity metrics on our two newly created datasets and one dataset from related work.

Mathematical reasoning models are widely deployed in education, automated tutoring, and decision support systems despite exhibiting fundamental computational instabilities. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable reasoning pathways: 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways. Additionally, 8.8% of all predictions are silent failures -- confident yet incorrect outputs. Through comprehensive analysis using novel faithfulness metrics, we reveal: (1) reasoning quality shows weak negative correlation with correctness (r=-0.21, p=0.002), reflecting a binary classification threshold artifact rather than a monotonic inverse relationship; (2) scaling from 1.5B to 7B parameters (4.7x increase) provides zero accuracy benefit on our evaluated subset (6% of GSM8K), requiring validation on the complete benchmark; and (3) latent reasoning employs diverse computational strategies, with ~20% sharing CoT-like patterns. These findings highlight that benchmark accuracy can mask computational unreliability, demanding evaluation reforms measuring stability beyond single-sample metrics.

This paper introduces MalAlgoQA, a novel dataset designed to evaluate the counterfactual reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) through a pedagogical approach. The dataset comprises mathematics and reading comprehension questions, each accompanied by four answer choices and their corresponding rationales. At the heart of MalAlgoQA are ``malgorithms'' - rationales behind incorrect answer choices that represent flawed yet logically coherent reasoning paths. These malgorithms serve as counterfactual scenarios, allowing us to assess an LLM's ability to identify and analyze flawed reasoning patterns. We propose the Malgorithm Identification task, where LLMs are assessed based on their ability to identify corresponding malgorithm given an incorrect answer choice. To evaluate the model performance, we introduce two metrics: Algorithm Identification Accuracy (AIA) for correct answer rationale identification, and Malgorithm Identification Accuracy (MIA) for incorrect answer rationale identification. Our experiments reveal that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant performance drops in MIA compared to AIA, highlighting the challenges in counterfactual reasoning. Surprisingly, we find that the chain-of-thought prompting technique not only fails to consistently enhance MIA but can sometimes lead to underperformance compared to simple prompting. These findings have important implications for developing LLMs with improved counterfactual reasoning, particularly relevant for AI-powered tutoring systems, where identifying and addressing student misconceptions is essential. MalAlgoQA dataset is available https://github.com/luffycodes/MalAlgoQA-Dataset{here}.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

Existing metrics for evaluating the quality of automatically generated questions such as BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, and BLEURT compare the reference and predicted questions, providing a high score when there is a considerable lexical overlap or semantic similarity between the candidate and the reference questions. This approach has two major shortcomings. First, we need expensive human-provided reference questions. Second, it penalises valid questions that may not have high lexical or semantic similarity to the reference questions. In this paper, we propose a new metric, RQUGE, based on the answerability of the candidate question given the context. The metric consists of a question-answering and a span scorer modules, using pre-trained models from existing literature, thus it can be used without any further training. We demonstrate that RQUGE has a higher correlation with human judgment without relying on the reference question. Additionally, RQUGE is shown to be more robust to several adversarial corruptions. Furthermore, we illustrate that we can significantly improve the performance of QA models on out-of-domain datasets by fine-tuning on synthetic data generated by a question generation model and re-ranked by RQUGE.

Evaluation of QA systems is very challenging and expensive, with the most reliable approach being human annotations of correctness of answers for questions. Recent works (AVA, BEM) have shown that transformer LM encoder based similarity metrics transfer well for QA evaluation, but they are limited by the usage of a single correct reference answer. We propose a new evaluation metric: SQuArE (Sentence-level QUestion AnsweRing Evaluation), using multiple reference answers (combining multiple correct and incorrect references) for sentence-form QA. We evaluate SQuArE on both sentence-level extractive (Answer Selection) and generative (GenQA) QA systems, across multiple academic and industrial datasets, and show that it outperforms previous baselines and obtains the highest correlation with human annotations.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks. However, recent research has highlighted their sensitivity to variations in input prompts. To deploy LLMs in a safe and reliable manner, it is crucial for their outputs to be consistent when prompted with expressions that carry the same meaning or intent. While some existing work has explored how state-of-the-art LLMs address this issue, their evaluations have been confined to assessing lexical equality of single- or multi-word answers, overlooking the consistency of generative text sequences. For a more comprehensive understanding of the consistency of LLMs in open-ended text generation scenarios, we introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs. Our proposal demonstrates significantly higher consistency and stronger correlation with human evaluations of output consistency than traditional metrics based on lexical consistency. Finally, we propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency. When evaluated for closed-book question answering based on answer variations from the TruthfulQA benchmark, A2C increases accuracy metrics for pretrained and finetuned LLMs by up to 47%, and semantic consistency metrics for instruction-tuned models by up to 7-fold.

Automated teaching assistants and chatbots have significant potential to reduce the workload of human instructors, especially for logistics-related question answering, which is important to students yet repetitive for instructors. However, due to privacy concerns, there is a lack of publicly available datasets. We introduce SyllabusQA, an open-source dataset with 63 real course syllabi covering 36 majors, containing 5,078 open-ended course logistics-related question-answer pairs that are diverse in both question types and answer formats. Since many logistics-related questions contain critical information like the date of an exam, it is important to evaluate the factuality of answers. We benchmark several strong baselines on this task, from large language model prompting to retrieval-augmented generation. We introduce Fact-QA, an LLM-based (GPT-4) evaluation metric to evaluate the factuality of predicted answers. We find that despite performing close to humans on traditional metrics of textual similarity, there remains a significant gap between automated approaches and humans in terms of fact precision.

We present TIGERScore, a Trained metric that follows Instruction Guidance to perform Explainable, and Reference-free evaluation over a wide spectrum of text generation tasks. Different from other automatic evaluation methods that only provide arcane scores, TIGERScore is guided by the natural language instruction to provide error analysis to pinpoint the mistakes in the generated text. Our metric is based on LLaMA, trained on our meticulously curated instruction-tuning dataset MetricInstruct which covers 6 text generation tasks and 23 text generation datasets. The dataset consists of 48K quadruple in the form of (instruction, input, system output rightarrow error analysis). We collected the `system outputs' through diverse channels to cover different types of errors. To quantitatively assess our metric, we evaluate its correlation with human ratings on 5 held-in datasets, 2 held-out datasets and show that TIGERScore can achieve the highest overall Spearman's correlation with human ratings across these datasets and outperforms other metrics significantly. As a reference-free metric, its correlation can even surpass the best existing reference-based metrics. To further qualitatively assess the rationale generated by our metric, we conduct human evaluation on the generated explanations and found that the explanations are 70.8\% accurate. Through these experimental results, we believe TIGERScore demonstrates the possibility of building universal explainable metrics to evaluate any text generation task.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their remarkable performance across various language understanding tasks. While emerging benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs in various domains such as mathematics and computer science, they merely measure the accuracy in terms of the final prediction on multi-choice questions. However, it remains insufficient to verify the essential understanding of LLMs given a chosen choice. To fill this gap, we present CLR-Bench to comprehensively evaluate the LLMs in complex college-level reasoning. Specifically, (i) we prioritize 16 challenging college disciplines in computer science and artificial intelligence. The dataset contains 5 types of questions, while each question is associated with detailed explanations from experts. (ii) To quantify a fair evaluation of LLMs' reasoning ability, we formalize the criteria with two novel metrics. QrightarrowA is utilized to measure the performance of direct answer prediction, and QrightarrowAR effectively considers the joint ability to answer the question and provide rationale simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted with 40 LLMs over 1,018 discipline-specific questions. The results demonstrate the key insights that LLMs, even the best closed-source LLM, i.e., GPT-4 turbo, tend to `guess' the college-level answers. It shows a dramatic decrease in accuracy from 63.31% QrightarrowA to 39.00% QrightarrowAR, indicating an unsatisfactory reasoning ability.

Subjective Answer Grading (SAG) plays a crucial role in education, standardized testing, and automated assessment systems, particularly for evaluating short-form responses in Short Answer Scoring (SAS). However, existing approaches often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as zero-shot evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SAS-Bench, a benchmark specifically designed for LLM-based SAS tasks. SAS-Bench provides fine-grained, step-wise scoring, expert-annotated error categories, and a diverse range of question types derived from real-world subject-specific exams. This benchmark facilitates detailed evaluation of model reasoning processes and explainability. We also release an open-source dataset containing 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses, each annotated by domain experts. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive experiments with various LLMs, identifying major challenges in scoring science-related questions and highlighting the effectiveness of few-shot prompting in improving scoring accuracy. Our work offers valuable insights into the development of more robust, fair, and educationally meaningful LLM-based evaluation systems.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) perform Question Answering (QA) tasks in various domains. However, RAG based on open-source LLM for specialized domains has challenges of evaluating generated responses. A popular framework in the literature is the RAG Assessment (RAGAS), a publicly available library which uses LLMs for evaluation. One disadvantage of RAGAS is the lack of details of derivation of numerical value of the evaluation metrics. One of the outcomes of this work is a modified version of this package for few metrics (faithfulness, context relevance, answer relevance, answer correctness, answer similarity and factual correctness) through which we provide the intermediate outputs of the prompts by using any LLMs. Next, we analyse the expert evaluations of the output of the modified RAGAS package and observe the challenges of using it in the telecom domain. We also study the effect of the metrics under correct vs. wrong retrieval and observe that few of the metrics have higher values for correct retrieval. We also study for differences in metrics between base embeddings and those domain adapted via pre-training and fine-tuning. Finally, we comment on the suitability and challenges of using these metrics for in-the-wild telecom QA task.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in mathematical reasoning, underscoring the need for a comprehensive and fair evaluation of their capabilities. However, existing benchmarks often fall short, either lacking extensive coverage of undergraduate-level mathematical problems or probably suffering from test-set contamination. To address these issues, we introduce UGMathBench, a diverse and dynamic benchmark specifically designed for evaluating undergraduate-level mathematical reasoning with LLMs. UGMathBench comprises 5,062 problems across 16 subjects and 111 topics, featuring 10 distinct answer types. Each problem includes three randomized versions, with additional versions planned for release as leading open-source LLMs become saturated in UGMathBench. Furthermore, we propose two key metrics: effective accuracy (EAcc), which measures the percentage of correctly solved problems across all three versions, and reasoning gap (Delta), which assesses reasoning robustness by calculating the difference between the average accuracy across all versions and EAcc. Our extensive evaluation of 23 leading LLMs reveals that the highest EAcc achieved is 56.3\% by OpenAI-o1-mini, with large Delta values observed across different models. This highlights the need for future research aimed at developing "large reasoning models" with high EAcc and Delta = 0. We anticipate that the release of UGMathBench, along with its detailed evaluation codes, will serve as a valuable resource to advance the development of LLMs in solving mathematical problems.

Evaluating radiology reports is a challenging problem as factual correctness is extremely important due to the need for accurate medical communication about medical images. Existing automatic evaluation metrics either suffer from failing to consider factual correctness (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or are limited in their interpretability (e.g., F1CheXpert and F1RadGraph). In this paper, we introduce GREEN (Generative Radiology Report Evaluation and Error Notation), a radiology report generation metric that leverages the natural language understanding of language models to identify and explain clinically significant errors in candidate reports, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Compared to current metrics, GREEN offers: 1) a score aligned with expert preferences, 2) human interpretable explanations of clinically significant errors, enabling feedback loops with end-users, and 3) a lightweight open-source method that reaches the performance of commercial counterparts. We validate our GREEN metric by comparing it to GPT-4, as well as to error counts of 6 experts and preferences of 2 experts. Our method demonstrates not only higher correlation with expert error counts, but simultaneously higher alignment with expert preferences when compared to previous approaches."

Existing language model evaluations primarily measure general capabilities, yet reliable use of these models across a range of domains demands factual accuracy and recognition of knowledge gaps. We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including AI in Science (AIS), should be done following the principles of responsible AI. Progress in responsible AI is often quantified through evaluation metrics, yet there has been less work on assessing the robustness and reliability of the metrics themselves. We reflect on prior work that examines the robustness of fairness metrics for recommender systems as a type of AI application and summarise their key takeaways into a set of non-exhaustive guidelines for developing reliable metrics of responsible AI. Our guidelines apply to a broad spectrum of AI applications, including AIS.

Temporal question answering is an established method for evaluating temporal reasoning in large language models. Expected answers are often numeric (e.g., dates or durations), yet model responses are evaluated like regular text with exact match (EM), unable to distinguish small from large errors. In this investigative work, we frame temporal question answering as a numerical estimation task to assess the shortcomings of EM. We introduce TempAnswerQA, a benchmark distilled from Test of Time and TempTabQA, where all questions require a numerical, temporal answer, allowing us to evaluate models beyond EM. We use the forecasting metrics symmetric mean absolute percentage error (sMAPE) and mean absolute scaled error (MASE). With sMAPE, we find that error size and EM are decoupled. Models with low EM still have low sMAPE (both ~20%), and some models have high sMAPE despite high EM. Scaling errors by the deviation of the ground truth data with MASE reshuffles model rankings compared to EM, revealing gaps in models' understanding of temporal domain knowledge, especially when trained with synthetic data. Lastly, the models' most frequent error is to deviate by only pm1 from the ground truth. sMAPE and MASE, unlike EM, adequately weight these errors. Our findings underscore the need for specialised metrics for temporal QA tasks. Code and data are available on https://github.com/aauss/temporal-answer-qa.

Through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models have achieved substantial progress in domains with easily verifiable outcomes, such as mathematics and coding. However, when applied to more complex tasks like open-domain question answering, RLVR faces significant challenges due to the difficulty of verifying correctness. The nuanced and ambiguous nature of real-world knowledge makes it difficult to reliably evaluate correctness in these settings, necessitating further abilities that extend beyond mere logical consistency to encompass an understanding and assessment of both external and internal knowledge. Recent work has primarily focused on improving faithfulness, defined as semantic alignment with supporting documents, which can cause models to rely excessively on external sources and diminish their capacity for critical assessment. To address this, we propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM), which incorporates sentence-level thinking supervision to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities. Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness. By structuring reward modeling as a sequence of faithfulness, reasoning, and correctness evaluations, TRM encourages models to critically assess and leverage both external and internal knowledge. Experiments on reward signals demonstrate that TRM substantially improves the identification of incorrect sentences, and incorporating TRM into policy optimization leads to significant gains in both answer correctness and usefulness.

Neural abstractive summarization models are prone to generate content inconsistent with the source document, i.e. unfaithful. Existing automatic metrics do not capture such mistakes effectively. We tackle the problem of evaluating faithfulness of a generated summary given its source document. We first collected human annotations of faithfulness for outputs from numerous models on two datasets. We find that current models exhibit a trade-off between abstractiveness and faithfulness: outputs with less word overlap with the source document are more likely to be unfaithful. Next, we propose an automatic question answering (QA) based metric for faithfulness, FEQA, which leverages recent advances in reading comprehension. Given question-answer pairs generated from the summary, a QA model extracts answers from the document; non-matched answers indicate unfaithful information in the summary. Among metrics based on word overlap, embedding similarity, and learned language understanding models, our QA-based metric has significantly higher correlation with human faithfulness scores, especially on highly abstractive summaries.

As machine translation (MT) metrics improve their correlation with human judgement every year, it is crucial to understand the limitations of such metrics at the segment level. Specifically, it is important to investigate metric behaviour when facing accuracy errors in MT because these can have dangerous consequences in certain contexts (e.g., legal, medical). We curate ACES, a translation accuracy challenge set, consisting of 68 phenomena ranging from simple perturbations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We use ACES to evaluate a wide range of MT metrics including the submissions to the WMT 2022 metrics shared task and perform several analyses leading to general recommendations for metric developers. We recommend: a) combining metrics with different strengths, b) developing metrics that give more weight to the source and less to surface-level overlap with the reference and c) explicitly modelling additional language-specific information beyond what is available via multilingual embeddings.

Ambiguous questions are a challenge for Question Answering models, as they require answers that cover multiple interpretations of the original query. To this end, these models are required to generate long-form answers that often combine conflicting pieces of information. Although recent advances in the field have shown strong capabilities in generating fluent responses, certain research questions remain unanswered. Does model/data scaling improve the answers' quality? Do automated metrics align with human judgment? To what extent do these models ground their answers in evidence? In this study, we aim to thoroughly investigate these aspects, and provide valuable insights into the limitations of the current approaches. To aid in reproducibility and further extension of our work, we open-source our code at https://github.com/din0s/ambig_lfqa.

The predictions of question answering (QA)systems are typically evaluated against manually annotated finite sets of one or more answers. This leads to a coverage limitation that results in underestimating the true performance of systems, and is typically addressed by extending over exact match (EM) with pre-defined rules or with the token-level F1 measure. In this paper, we present the first systematic conceptual and data-driven analysis to examine the shortcomings of token-level equivalence measures. To this end, we define the asymmetric notion of answer equivalence (AE), accepting answers that are equivalent to or improve over the reference, and publish over 23k human judgments for candidates produced by multiple QA systems on SQuAD. Through a careful analysis of this data, we reveal and quantify several concrete limitations of the F1 measure, such as a false impression of graduality, or missing dependence on the question. Since collecting AE annotations for each evaluated model is expensive, we learn a BERT matching (BEM) measure to approximate this task. Being a simpler task than QA, we find BEM to provide significantly better AE approximations than F1, and to more accurately reflect the performance of systems. Finally, we demonstrate the practical utility of AE and BEM on the concrete application of minimal accurate prediction sets, reducing the number of required answers by up to x2.6.

Actual causality (AC), a fundamental aspect of causal reasoning (CR), is responsible for attribution and responsibility assignment in real-world scenarios. However, existing LLM-based methods lack grounding in formal AC theory, resulting in limited interpretability. Therefore, we propose AC-Reason, a semi-formal reasoning framework that identifies causally relevant events within an AC scenario, infers the values of their formal causal factors (e.g., sufficiency, necessity, and normality), and answers AC queries via a theory-guided algorithm with explanations. While AC-Reason does not explicitly construct a causal graph, it operates over variables in the underlying causal structure to support principled reasoning. To enable comprehensive evaluation, we introduce AC-Bench, a new benchmark built upon and substantially extending Big-Bench Hard Causal Judgment (BBH-CJ). AC-Bench comprises ~1K carefully annotated samples, each with detailed reasoning steps and focuses solely on actual causation. The case study shows that synthesized samples in AC-Bench present greater challenges for LLMs. Extensive experiments on BBH-CJ and AC-Bench show that AC-Reason consistently improves LLM performance over baselines. On BBH-CJ, all tested LLMs surpass the average human rater accuracy of 69.60%, with GPT-4 + AC-Reason achieving 75.04%. On AC-Bench, GPT-4 + AC-Reason again achieves the highest accuracy of 71.82%. AC-Bench further enables fine-grained analysis of reasoning faithfulness, revealing that only Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, and GPT-4o exhibit faithful reasoning, whereas GPT-4 tends to exploit shortcuts. Finally, our ablation study proves that integrating AC theory into LLMs is highly effective, with the proposed algorithm contributing the most significant performance gains.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited. We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response, thereby reducing factual fidelity. To address this issue, we propose MR-ALIGN, a Meta-Reasoning informed alignment framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers. MR-ALIGN quantifies state transition probabilities along the model's thinking process and constructs a transition-aware implicit reward that reinforces beneficial reasoning patterns while suppressing defective ones at the atomic thinking segments. This re-weighting reshapes token-level signals into probability-aware segment scores, encouraging coherent reasoning trajectories that are more conducive to factual correctness. Empirical evaluations across four factual QA datasets and one long-form factuality benchmark show that MR-ALIGN consistently improves accuracy and truthfulness while reducing misleading reasoning. These results highlight that aligning the reasoning process itself, rather than merely the outputs, is pivotal for advancing factuality in LRMs.

Abstention Ability (AA) is a critical aspect of Large Language Model (LLM) reliability, referring to an LLM's capability to withhold responses when uncertain or lacking a definitive answer, without compromising performance. Although previous studies have attempted to improve AA, they lack a standardised evaluation method and remain unsuitable for black-box models where token prediction probabilities are inaccessible. This makes comparative analysis challenging, especially for state-of-the-art closed-source commercial LLMs. This paper bridges this gap by introducing a black-box evaluation approach and a new dataset, Abstain-QA, crafted to rigorously assess AA across varied question types (answerable and unanswerable), domains (well-represented and under-represented), and task types (fact centric and reasoning). We also propose a new confusion matrix, the ''Answerable-Unanswerable Confusion Matrix'' (AUCM) which serves as the basis for evaluating AA, by offering a structured and precise approach for assessment. Finally, we explore the impact of three prompting strategies-Strict Prompting, Verbal Confidence Thresholding, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-on improving AA. Our results indicate that even powerful models like GPT-4, Mixtral 8x22b encounter difficulties with abstention; however, strategic approaches such as Strict prompting and CoT can enhance this capability.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for advancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, a critical paradox clouds its efficacy: RLVR-tuned models often underperform their base models on the Pass@K metric for solution-finding, leading to the hypothesis that RLVR merely re-weights existing reasoning paths at the cost of reasoning diversity. In this work, we resolve this contradiction by identifying the source of the problem: the Pass@K metric itself is a flawed measure of reasoning, as it credits correct final answers that probably arise from inaccurate or incomplete chains of thought (CoTs). To address this, we introduce a more precise evaluation metric, CoT-Pass@K, which mandates that both the reasoning path and the final answer be correct. We provide a new theoretical foundation that formalizes how RLVR, unlike traditional RL, is uniquely structured to incentivize logical integrity. Our empirical results are supportive: using CoT-Pass@K, we observe that RLVR can incentivize the generalization of correct reasoning for all values of K. Furthermore, by analyzing the training dynamics, we find that this enhanced reasoning capability emerges early in the training process and smoothly generalizes. Our work provides a clear perspective on the role of RLVR, offers a more reliable method for its evaluation, and confirms its potential to genuinely advance machine reasoning.

Predictive artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes, but risks perpetuating biases if fairness is inadequately addressed. However, the definition of "fairness" remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review to identify and critically appraise fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI. We defined a "fairness metric" as a measure quantifying whether a model discriminates (societally) against individuals or groups defined by sensitive attributes. We searched five databases (2014-2024), screening 820 records, to include 41 studies, and extracted 62 fairness metrics. Metrics were classified by performance-dependency, model output level, and base performance metric, revealing a fragmented landscape with limited clinical validation and overreliance on threshold-dependent measures. Eighteen metrics were explicitly developed for healthcare, including only one clinical utility metric. Our findings highlight conceptual challenges in defining and quantifying fairness and identify gaps in uncertainty quantification, intersectionality, and real-world applicability. Future work should prioritise clinically meaningful metrics.

Grounded text generation systems often generate text that contains factual inconsistencies, hindering their real-world applicability. Automatic factual consistency evaluation may help alleviate this limitation by accelerating evaluation cycles, filtering inconsistent outputs and augmenting training data. While attracting increasing attention, such evaluation metrics are usually developed and evaluated in silo for a single task or dataset, slowing their adoption. Moreover, previous meta-evaluation protocols focused on system-level correlations with human annotations, which leave the example-level accuracy of such metrics unclear. In this work, we introduce TRUE: a comprehensive survey and assessment of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks, manually annotated for factual consistency. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations, yielding clearer quality measures. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results. We recommend those methods as a starting point for model and metric developers, and hope TRUE will foster progress towards even better evaluation methods.

Large language models (LLMs) can correctly answer "When was Einstein born?" yet fail to provide the same date when writing about Einstein's life revealing a fundamental inconsistency in how models access factual knowledge across task complexities. While models display impressive accuracy on factual question-answering benchmarks, the reliability gap between simple and complex queries remains poorly understood, eroding their trustworthiness. In this work, we introduce Short-Long Form Alignment for Factual Question Answering (SLAQ), a controlled evaluation framework that compares LLMs' answers to the same factual questions asked (a) in isolation (short) vs. (b) integrated into complex queries (long). Looking at 16 LLMs across 600 queries, we find a systematic misalignment of answers to the corresponding short and long queries. We further uncover position-dependent accuracy loss and momentum effects where consecutive correct or incorrect answers create self-reinforcing patterns. Through mechanistic analysis, we find that aligned facts activate overlapping model internals, and that metrics based on mechanistic similarity can predict short-long answer alignment with up to 78% accuracy. Our work establishes factual consistency over query complexity as an important aspect of LLMs' trustworthiness and challenges current evaluation practices, which implicitly assume that good performance for simple factual queries implies reliability in more complex knowledge-seeking tasks too.

Recent machine translation (MT) metrics calibrate their effectiveness by correlating with human judgement but without any insights about their behaviour across different error types. Challenge sets are used to probe specific dimensions of metric behaviour but there are very few such datasets and they either focus on a limited number of phenomena or a limited number of language pairs. We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs, aimed at discovering whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. These phenomena range from simple alterations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks. We benchmark metric performance, assess their incremental performance over successive campaigns, and measure their sensitivity to a range of linguistic phenomena. We also investigate claims that Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective as MT evaluators by evaluating on ACES. Our results demonstrate that different metric families struggle with different phenomena and that LLM-based methods fail to demonstrate reliable performance. Our analyses indicate that most metrics ignore the source sentence, tend to prefer surface-level overlap and end up incorporating properties of base models which are not always beneficial. We expand ACES to include error span annotations, denoted as SPAN-ACES and we use this dataset to evaluate span-based error metrics showing these metrics also need considerable improvement. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for building better MT metrics, including focusing on error labels instead of scores, ensembling, designing strategies to explicitly focus on the source sentence, focusing on semantic content and choosing the right base model for representations.

Despite the increasing effectiveness of language models, their reasoning capabilities remain underdeveloped. In particular, causal reasoning through counterfactual question answering is lacking. This work aims to bridge this gap. We first derive novel metrics that balance accuracy in factual and counterfactual questions, capturing a more complete view of the reasoning abilities of language models than traditional factual-only based metrics. Second, we propose several fine-tuning approaches that aim to elicit better reasoning mechanisms, in the sense of the proposed metrics. Finally, we evaluate the performance of the fine-tuned language models in a variety of realistic scenarios. In particular, we investigate to what extent our fine-tuning approaches systemically achieve better generalization with respect to the base models in several problems that require, among others, inductive and deductive reasoning capabilities.

As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often overly simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well, making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs, which models might memorize or guess. To address these limitations, we introduce the Dynamic Intelligence Assessment (DIA), a novel methodology for testing AI models using dynamic question templates and improved metrics across multiple disciplines such as mathematics, cryptography, cybersecurity, and computer science. The accompanying DIA-Bench dataset, which includes 150 diverse and challenging task templates with mutable parameters, is presented in various formats such as text, PDFs, compiled binaries, and visual puzzles. Our framework introduces four new metrics to assess a model's reliability and confidence across multiple attempts. These metrics revealed that even simple questions are frequently answered incorrectly when posed in varying forms, highlighting significant gaps in models' reliability. Notably, models like GPT-4o tended to overestimate their mathematical abilities, while ChatGPT-4o demonstrated better decision-making and performance through effective tool usage. We evaluated eight state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) using DIA-Bench, showing that current models struggle with complex tasks and often display unexpectedly low confidence, even with simpler questions. The DIA framework sets a new standard for assessing not only problem-solving but also a model's adaptive intelligence and ability to assess its own limitations. The dataset is publicly available on our project's website.

Automatically generated questions often suffer from problems such as unclear expression or factual inaccuracies, requiring a reliable and comprehensive evaluation of their quality. Human evaluation is frequently used in the field of question generation (QG) and is one of the most accurate evaluation methods. It also serves as the standard for automatic metrics. However, there is a lack of unified evaluation criteria, which hampers the development of both QG technologies and automatic evaluation methods. To address this, we propose QGEval, a multi-dimensional Evaluation benchmark for Question Generation, which evaluates both generated questions and existing automatic metrics across 7 dimensions: fluency, clarity, conciseness, relevance, consistency, answerability, and answer consistency. We demonstrate the appropriateness of these dimensions by examining their correlations and distinctions. Analysis with QGEval reveals that 1) most QG models perform unsatisfactorily in terms of answerability and answer consistency, and 2) existing metrics fail to align well with human assessments when evaluating generated questions across the 7 dimensions. We expect this work to foster the development of both QG technologies and automatic metrics for QG.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can correct their self-generated responses, but a decline in accuracy after self-correction is also witnessed. To have a deeper understanding of self-correction, we endeavor to decompose, evaluate, and analyze the self-correction behaviors of LLMs. By enumerating and analyzing answer correctness before and after self-correction, we decompose the self-correction capability into confidence (being confident to correct answers) and critique (turning wrong answers to correct) capabilities, and propose two metrics from a probabilistic perspective to measure these 2 capabilities, along with another metric for overall self-correction capability evaluation. Based on our decomposition and evaluation metrics, we conduct extensive experiments and draw some empirical conclusions. For example, we find different models can exhibit distinct behaviors: some models are confident while others are more critical. We also find the trade-off between the two capabilities (i.e. improving one can lead to a decline in the other) when manipulating model self-correction behavior by prompts or in-context learning. Further, we find a simple yet efficient strategy to improve self-correction capability by transforming Supervision Fine-Tuning (SFT) data format, and our strategy outperforms vanilla SFT in both capabilities and achieves much higher accuracy after self-correction. Our code will be publicly available on GitHub.

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

Evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI, but has been a longstanding research challenge. While human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, it is expensive and lacks scalability. Practical applications have driven the development of various automatic evaluation metrics (AEM), designed to compare the model output with human-written references, generating a score which approximates human judgment. Over time, AEMs have evolved from simple lexical comparisons, to semantic similarity models and, more recently, to LLM-based evaluators. However, it seems that no single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications. This paper aims to show this by conducting a thorough examination of the methodologies of existing metrics, their documented strengths and limitations, validation methods, and correlations with human judgment. We identify several key challenges: metrics often capture only specific aspects of text quality, their effectiveness varies by task and dataset, validation practices remain unstructured, and correlations with human judgment are inconsistent. Importantly, we find that these challenges persist in the most recent type of metric, LLM-as-a-Judge, as well as in the evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), an increasingly relevant task in academia and industry. Our findings challenge the quest for the 'perfect metric'. We propose selecting metrics based on task-specific needs and leveraging complementary evaluations and advocate that new metrics should focus on enhanced validation methodologies.

We present a Chain-of-Action (CoA) framework for multimodal and retrieval-augmented Question-Answering (QA). Compared to the literature, CoA overcomes two major challenges of current QA applications: (i) unfaithful hallucination that is inconsistent with real-time or domain facts and (ii) weak reasoning performance over compositional information. Our key contribution is a novel reasoning-retrieval mechanism that decomposes a complex question into a reasoning chain via systematic prompting and pre-designed actions. Methodologically, we propose three types of domain-adaptable `Plug-and-Play' actions for retrieving real-time information from heterogeneous sources. We also propose a multi-reference faith score (MRFS) to verify and resolve conflicts in the answers. Empirically, we exploit both public benchmarks and a Web3 case study to demonstrate the capability of CoA over other methods.

Fact-checking is extensively studied in the context of misinformation and disinformation, addressing objective inaccuracies. However, a softer form of misinformation involves responses that are factually correct but lack certain features such as clarity and relevance. This challenge is prevalent in formal Question-Answer (QA) settings such as press conferences in finance, politics, sports, and other domains, where subjective answers can obscure transparency. Despite this, there is a lack of manually annotated datasets for subjective features across multiple dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce SubjECTive-QA, a human annotated dataset on Earnings Call Transcripts' (ECTs) QA sessions as the answers given by company representatives are often open to subjective interpretations and scrutiny. The dataset includes 49,446 annotations for long-form QA pairs across six features: Assertive, Cautious, Optimistic, Specific, Clear, and Relevant. These features are carefully selected to encompass the key attributes that reflect the tone of the answers provided during QA sessions across different domain. Our findings are that the best-performing Pre-trained Language Model (PLM), RoBERTa-base, has similar weighted F1 scores to Llama-3-70b-Chat on features with lower subjectivity, such as Relevant and Clear, with a mean difference of 2.17% in their weighted F1 scores. The models perform significantly better on features with higher subjectivity, such as Specific and Assertive, with a mean difference of 10.01% in their weighted F1 scores. Furthermore, testing SubjECTive-QA's generalizability using QAs from White House Press Briefings and Gaggles yields an average weighted F1 score of 65.97% using our best models for each feature, demonstrating broader applicability beyond the financial domain. SubjECTive-QA is publicly available under the CC BY 4.0 license

Automatic evaluation metrics are a crucial component of dialog systems research. Standard language evaluation metrics are known to be ineffective for evaluating dialog. As such, recent research has proposed a number of novel, dialog-specific metrics that correlate better with human judgements. Due to the fast pace of research, many of these metrics have been assessed on different datasets and there has as yet been no time for a systematic comparison between them. To this end, this paper provides a comprehensive assessment of recently proposed dialog evaluation metrics on a number of datasets. In this paper, 23 different automatic evaluation metrics are evaluated on 10 different datasets. Furthermore, the metrics are assessed in different settings, to better qualify their respective strengths and weaknesses. Metrics are assessed (1) on both the turn level and the dialog level, (2) for different dialog lengths, (3) for different dialog qualities (e.g., coherence, engaging), (4) for different types of response generation models (i.e., generative, retrieval, simple models and state-of-the-art models), (5) taking into account the similarity of different metrics and (6) exploring combinations of different metrics. This comprehensive assessment offers several takeaways pertaining to dialog evaluation metrics in general. It also suggests how to best assess evaluation metrics and indicates promising directions for future work.

We introduce Metric-Fair Prompting, a fairness-aware prompting framework that guides large language models (LLMs) to make decisions under metric-fairness constraints. In the application of multiple-choice medical question answering, each {(question, option)} pair is treated as a binary instance with label +1 (correct) or -1 (incorrect). To promote {individual fairness}~--~treating similar instances similarly~--~we compute question similarity using NLP embeddings and solve items in joint pairs of similar questions rather than in isolation. The prompt enforces a global decision protocol: extract decisive clinical features, map each \((question, option)\) to a score f(x) that acts as confidence, and impose a Lipschitz-style constraint so that similar inputs receive similar scores and, hence, consistent outputs. Evaluated on the {MedQA (US)} benchmark, Metric-Fair Prompting is shown to improve performance over standard single-item prompting, demonstrating that fairness-guided, confidence-oriented reasoning can enhance LLM accuracy on high-stakes clinical multiple-choice questions.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remains an open challenge. Prior research has often framed confidence as a problem of eliciting a model's "self-knowledge", i.e., the ability of an LLM to judge whether its own answers are correct; this approach implicitly assumes that there is some privileged information about the answer's correctness that is accessible to the model itself. However, our experiments reveal that an LLM attempting to predict the correctness of its own outputs generally performs no better than an unrelated LLM. Moreover, we hypothesize that a key factor in building a "Correctness Model" (CM) is exposure to a target model's historical predictions. We propose multiple methods to inject this historical correctness information, creating a Generalized Correctness Model (GCM). We first show that GCMs can be trained on the correctness data from many LLMs and learn patterns for correctness prediction applicable across datasets and models. We then use CMs as a lens for studying the source of correctness prediction ability and its generalization, systematically controlling their training data and finding that answer phrasing is a strong predictor for correctness. We further explore alternative methods of injecting history without training an LLM, finding that including history as in-context examples can help improve correctness prediction, and post-hoc calibration can provide complementary reductions in calibration error. We evaluate GCMs based on Qwen3-8B across 5 model families and the MMLU and TriviaQA datasets, as well as on a downstream selective prediction task, finding that reliable LLM confidence estimation is a generalizable and model-agnostic skill learned by systematically encoding correctness history rather than a model-specific skill reliant on self-introspection.

Evaluating whether multimodal large language models truly understand long-form scientific papers remains challenging: answer-only metrics and synthetic "Needle-In-A-Haystack" tests often reward answer matching without requiring a causal, evidence-linked reasoning trace in the document. We propose the "Fish-in-the-Ocean" (FITO) paradigm, which requires models to construct explicit cross-modal evidence chains within native scientific documents. To operationalize FITO, we build SIN-Data, a scientific interleaved corpus that preserves the native interleaving of text and figures. On top of it, we construct SIN-Bench with four progressive tasks covering evidence discovery (SIN-Find), hypothesis verification (SIN-Verify), grounded QA (SIN-QA), and evidence-anchored synthesis (SIN-Summary). We further introduce "No Evidence, No Score", scoring predictions when grounded to verifiable anchors and diagnosing evidence quality via matching, relevance, and logic. Experiments on eight MLLMs show that grounding is the primary bottleneck: Gemini-3-pro achieves the best average overall score (0.573), while GPT-5 attains the highest SIN-QA answer accuracy (0.767) but underperforms on evidence-aligned overall scores, exposing a gap between correctness and traceable support.

Although counterfactual reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intelligence, the lack of large-scale counterfactual open-domain question-answering (QA) benchmarks makes it difficult to evaluate and improve models on this ability. To address this void, we introduce the first such dataset, named IfQA, where each question is based on a counterfactual presupposition via an "if" clause. For example, if Los Angeles was on the east coast of the U.S., what would be the time difference between Los Angeles and Paris? Such questions require models to go beyond retrieving direct factual knowledge from the Web: they must identify the right information to retrieve and reason about an imagined situation that may even go against the facts built into their parameters. The IfQA dataset contains over 3,800 questions that were annotated annotated by crowdworkers on relevant Wikipedia passages. Empirical analysis reveals that the IfQA dataset is highly challenging for existing open-domain QA methods, including supervised retrieve-then-read pipeline methods (EM score 36.2), as well as recent few-shot approaches such as chain-of-thought prompting with GPT-3 (EM score 27.4). The unique challenges posed by the IfQA benchmark will push open-domain QA research on both retrieval and counterfactual reasoning fronts.

Neural knowledge-grounded generative models for dialogue often produce content that is factually inconsistent with the knowledge they rely on, making them unreliable and limiting their applicability. Inspired by recent work on evaluating factual consistency in abstractive summarization, we propose an automatic evaluation metric for factual consistency in knowledge-grounded dialogue using automatic question generation and question answering. Our metric, denoted Q^2, compares answer spans using natural language inference (NLI), instead of token-based matching as done in previous work. To foster proper evaluation, we curate a novel dataset of dialogue system outputs for the Wizard-of-Wikipedia dataset, manually annotated for factual consistency. We perform a thorough meta-evaluation of Q^2 against other metrics using this dataset and two others, where it consistently shows higher correlation with human judgements.

We propose two new methods for multi-document financial question answering. First, a method that uses semantic tagging, and then, queries the index to get the context (RAG_SEM). And second, a Knowledge Graph (KG_RAG) based method that uses semantic tagging, and, retrieves knowledge graph triples from a graph database, as context. KG_RAG uses knowledge graphs constructed using a small model that is fine-tuned using knowledge distillation using a large teacher model. The data consists of 18 10K reports of Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, NVIDIA, Amazon and Tesla for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The list of questions in the data consists of 111 complex questions including many esoteric questions that are difficult to answer and the answers are not completely obvious. As evaluation metrics, we use overall scores as well as segmented scores for measurement including the faithfulness, relevance, correctness, similarity, an LLM based overall score and the rouge scores as well as a similarity of embeddings. We find that both methods outperform plain RAG significantly. KG_RAG outperforms RAG_SEM in four out of nine metrics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in question answering (QA) tasks. However, Multi-Answer Question Answering (MAQA), where a question may have several valid answers, remains challenging. Traditional QA settings often assume consistency across evidences, but MAQA can involve conflicting answers. Constructing datasets that reflect such conflicts is costly and labor-intensive, while existing benchmarks often rely on synthetic data, restrict the task to yes/no questions, or apply unverified automated annotation. To advance research in this area, we extend the conflict-aware MAQA setting to require models not only to identify all valid answers, but also to detect specific conflicting answer pairs, if any. To support this task, we introduce a novel cost-effective methodology for leveraging fact-checking datasets to construct NATCONFQA, a new benchmark for realistic, conflict-aware MAQA, enriched with detailed conflict labels, for all answer pairs. We evaluate eight high-end LLMs on NATCONFQA, revealing their fragility in handling various types of conflicts and the flawed strategies they employ to resolve them.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems. Unlike prior studies that focus solely on answer correctness, we rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models - including Mixtral, Llama, Gemini, GPT-4o, and OpenAI's o1 variants - we find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic, sometimes producing correct answers through flawed logic. Common failure modes include unwarranted assumptions, over-reliance on numerical patterns, and difficulty translating physical intuition into mathematical steps. Manual analysis reveals that models struggle with problems requiring multi-step deduction or real-world knowledge, despite possessing broad mathematical knowledge. Our results underscore the importance of evaluating reasoning processes, not just answers, and caution against overestimating LLMs' problem-solving proficiency. The study highlights persistent gaps in LLMs' generalization abilities, emphasizing the need for targeted improvements in structured reasoning and constraint handling.

Open-ended questions test a more thorough understanding than closed-ended questions and are often a preferred assessment method. However, open-ended questions are tedious to grade and subject to personal bias. Therefore, there have been efforts to speed up the grading process through automation. Short Answer Grading (SAG) systems aim to automatically score students' answers. Despite growth in SAG methods and capabilities, there exists no comprehensive short-answer grading benchmark across different subjects, grading scales, and distributions. Thus, it is hard to assess the capabilities of current automated grading methods in terms of their generalizability. In this preliminary work, we introduce the combined ASAG2024 benchmark to facilitate the comparison of automated grading systems. Combining seven commonly used short-answer grading datasets in a common structure and grading scale. For our benchmark, we evaluate a set of recent SAG methods, revealing that while LLM-based approaches reach new high scores, they still are far from reaching human performance. This opens up avenues for future research on human-machine SAG systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly optimized for long reasoning, under the assumption that more reasoning leads to better performance. However, emerging evidence suggests that longer responses can sometimes degrade accuracy rather than improve it. In this paper, we conduct a systematic empirical study of the relationship between reasoning length and answer correctness. We find that LLMs tend to overthink simple problems, generating unnecessarily long outputs, and underthink harder ones, failing to extend their reasoning when it is most needed. This indicates that models might misjudge problem difficulty and fail to calibrate their response length appropriately. Furthermore, we investigate the effects of length reduction with a preference optimization algorithm when simply preferring the shorter responses regardless of answer correctness. Experiments show that the generation length can be significantly reduced while maintaining acceptable accuracy. Our findings highlight generation length as a meaningful signal for reasoning behavior and motivate further exploration into LLMs' self-awareness in reasoning length adaptation.

Selecting LLM-generated code candidates using LLM-generated tests is challenging because the tests themselves may be incorrect. Existing methods either treat all tests equally or rely on ad-hoc heuristics to filter unreliable tests. Yet determining test correctness requires knowing which codes are correct, creating a circular dependency. Our key insight is that we need not determine test correctness at all: test votes should rank, not merely count. What matters is not how many codes pass a test, but whether the test can distinguish correct from incorrect code. We break the circular dependency via leave-one-out evaluation: hold out one test, rank codes by their aggregate scores on all remaining tests, and measure whether the held-out test's pass/fail pattern agrees with this ranking. We formalize this agreement as the leave-one-out AUC~(LOO-AUC) and prove that the expected LOO-AUC is proportional to each test's ability to separate correct code from incorrect code. Building on this, we propose ACES~(AUC ConsistEncy Scoring) with two complementary variants: ACES-C provides closed-form weights that provably approximate the oracle in expectation under a mild assumption on average test quality; ACES-O drops this assumption and iteratively optimizes a differentiable LOO-AUC objective. Both operate solely on the binary pass matrix with negligible overhead, and achieve state-of-the-art Pass@k on multiple code generation benchmarks.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems face challenges with complex, multihop questions, and agentic frameworks such as Search-R1 (Jin et al., 2025), which operates iteratively, have been proposed to address these complexities. However, such approaches can introduce inefficiencies, including repetitive retrieval of previously processed information and challenges in contextualizing retrieved results effectively within the current generation prompt. Such issues can lead to unnecessary retrieval turns, suboptimal reasoning, inaccurate answers, and increased token consumption. In this paper, we investigate test-time modifications to the Search-R1 pipeline to mitigate these identified shortcomings. Specifically, we explore the integration of two components and their combination: a contextualization module to better integrate relevant information from retrieved documents into reasoning, and a de-duplication module that replaces previously retrieved documents with the next most relevant ones. We evaluate our approaches using the HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) and the Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) datasets, reporting the exact match (EM) score, an LLM-as-a-Judge assessment of answer correctness, and the average number of turns. Our best-performing variant, utilizing GPT-4.1-mini for contextualization, achieves a 5.6% increase in EM score and reduces the number of turns by 10.5% compared to the Search-R1 baseline, demonstrating improved answer accuracy and retrieval efficiency.

Classic lexical-matching-based QA metrics are slowly being phased out because they punish succinct or informative outputs just because those answers were not provided as ground truth. Recently proposed neural metrics can evaluate semantic similarity but were trained on small textual similarity datasets grafted from foreign domains. We introduce the Wiki Entity Similarity (WES) dataset, an 11M example, domain targeted, semantic entity similarity dataset that is generated from link texts in Wikipedia. WES is tailored to QA evaluation: the examples are entities and phrases and grouped into semantic clusters to simulate multiple ground-truth labels. Human annotators consistently agree with WES labels, and a basic cross encoder metric is better than four classic metrics at predicting human judgments of correctness.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

While Small Language Models (SLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on an increasingly wide array of commonsense reasoning benchmarks, current evaluation practices rely almost exclusively on the accuracy of their final answers, neglecting the validity of the reasoning processes that lead to those answers. To address this issue, we introduce ReTraceQA, a novel benchmark that introduces process-level evaluation for commonsense reasoning tasks. Our expert-annotated dataset reveals that in a substantial portion of instances (14-24%), SLMs provide correct final answers despite flawed reasoning processes, suggesting that the capabilities of SLMs are often overestimated by evaluation metrics that focus only on comparing the final answer with the ground truth. Indeed, we show that when employing strong Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for reasoning-aware evaluation rather than answer-only metrics, SLM performance drops significantly across all models and datasets, with scores decreasing by up to 25%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely applied to downstream domains. However, current LLMs for high-stakes domain tasks, such as financial investment and legal QA, typically generate brief answers without reasoning processes and explanations. This limits users' confidence in making decisions based on their responses. While original CoT shows promise, it lacks self-correction mechanisms during reasoning. This work introduces Domaino1s, which enhances LLMs' reasoning capabilities on domain tasks through supervised fine-tuning and tree search. We construct CoT-stock-2k and CoT-legal-2k datasets for fine-tuning models that activate domain-specific reasoning steps based on their judgment. Additionally, we propose Selective Tree Exploration to spontaneously explore solution spaces and sample optimal reasoning paths to improve performance. We also introduce PROOF-Score, a new metric for evaluating domain models' explainability, complementing traditional accuracy metrics with richer assessment dimensions. Extensive experiments on stock investment recommendation and legal reasoning QA tasks demonstrate Domaino1s's leading performance and explainability. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Domaino1s-006F/.

Many text generation applications require the generated text to be factually consistent with input information. Automatic evaluation of factual consistency is challenging. Previous work has developed various metrics that often depend on specific functions, such as natural language inference (NLI) or question answering (QA), trained on limited data. Those metrics thus can hardly assess diverse factual inconsistencies (e.g., contradictions, hallucinations) that occur in varying inputs/outputs (e.g., sentences, documents) from different tasks. In this paper, we propose AlignScore, a new holistic metric that applies to a variety of factual inconsistency scenarios as above. AlignScore is based on a general function of information alignment between two arbitrary text pieces. Crucially, we develop a unified training framework of the alignment function by integrating a large diversity of data sources, resulting in 4.7M training examples from 7 well-established tasks (NLI, QA, paraphrasing, fact verification, information retrieval, semantic similarity, and summarization). We conduct extensive experiments on large-scale benchmarks including 22 evaluation datasets, where 19 of the datasets were never seen in the alignment training. AlignScore achieves substantial improvement over a wide range of previous metrics. Moreover, AlignScore (355M parameters) matches or even outperforms metrics based on ChatGPT and GPT-4 that are orders of magnitude larger.

As the integration of large language models into daily life is on the rise, there is a clear gap in benchmarks for advising on subjective and personal dilemmas. To address this, we introduce AdvisorQA, the first benchmark developed to assess LLMs' capability in offering advice for deeply personalized concerns, utilizing the LifeProTips subreddit forum. This forum features a dynamic interaction where users post advice-seeking questions, receiving an average of 8.9 advice per query, with 164.2 upvotes from hundreds of users, embodying a collective intelligence framework. Therefore, we've completed a benchmark encompassing daily life questions, diverse corresponding responses, and majority vote ranking to train our helpfulness metric. Baseline experiments validate the efficacy of AdvisorQA through our helpfulness metric, GPT-4, and human evaluation, analyzing phenomena beyond the trade-off between helpfulness and harmlessness. AdvisorQA marks a significant leap in enhancing QA systems for providing personalized, empathetic advice, showcasing LLMs' improved understanding of human subjectivity.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for large language models (LLMs) has achieved remarkable progress in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities on tasks with clear correctness criteria, such as mathematical reasoning tasks. Several training metrics, such as entropy or response length, have been observed to correlate with different reasoning behaviors in reinforcement learning. Prior approaches incorporate such priors through reward or advantage shaping, which often relies on hand-crafted penalties and preferences (e.g., higher-is-better or lower-is-better). However, without careful hyperparameter tuning, these directional priors can be overly biased and may lead to failure. To this end, we introduce Conditional advANtage estimatiON (CANON), amplifying the impact of the target metric without presuming its direction. Specifically, CANON regroups the sampled responses into two groups based on the higher or lower value of a target metric, measures which metric trend contributes to better performance through inter-group comparison, and identifies the better response within the same group. In summary, CANON based on entropy consistently outperforms prior methods across three LLMs on both math reasoning and high-complexity logic tasks. When applied to response length, CANON further improves token efficiency, yielding a more favorable Pareto frontier in the performance-cost trade-off.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in Language Models (LMs) is crucial for improving their safety and reliability. Evaluations often use performance metrics like AUROC to assess how well UQ methods (e.g., negative sequence probabilities) correlate with task correctness functions (e.g., ROUGE-L). In this paper, we show that commonly used correctness functions bias UQ evaluations by inflating the performance of certain UQ methods. We evaluate 7 correctness functions -- from lexical-based and embedding-based metrics to LLM-as-a-judge approaches -- across 4 datasets x 4 models x 6 UQ methods. Our analysis reveals that length biases in the errors of these correctness functions distort UQ assessments by interacting with length biases in UQ methods. We identify LLM-as-a-judge approaches as among the least length-biased choices and hence a potential solution to mitigate these biases.

For fair academic recruitment at universities and research institutions, determination of the right measure based on globally accepted academic quality features is a highly delicate, challenging, but quite important problem to be addressed. In a series of two papers, we consider the modeling part for academic quality quantification in the first paper, in this paper, and the case studies part in the second paper. For academic quality quantification modeling, we develop two computational frameworks which can be used to construct a decision-support tool: (i) an optimization-based framework and (ii) a Siamese network (a type of artificial neural network)-based framework. The output of both models is a single index called Academic Quality Index (AQI) which is a measure of the overall academic quality. The data of academics from first-class and average-class world universities, based on Times Higher Education World University Rankings and QS World University Rankings, are assumed as the reference data for tuning model parameters.

In this research, we introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs). Building upon the BEATS framework, we present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics. These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk. These metrics enable a quantitative assessment of the extent to which LLM generated responses may perpetuate societal prejudices that reinforce or expand systemic inequities. To achieve a high score on this benchmark a LLM must show very equitable behavior in their responses, making it a rigorous standard for responsible AI evaluation. Empirical results based on data from our experiment show that, 37.65\% of outputs generated by industry leading models contained some form of bias, highlighting a substantial risk of using these models in critical decision making systems. BEATS framework and benchmark offer a scalable and statistically rigorous methodology to benchmark LLMs, diagnose factors driving biases, and develop mitigation strategies. With the BEATS framework, our goal is to help the development of more socially responsible and ethically aligned AI models.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a critical technique for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs) in factual evidence, yet evaluating RAG systems in specialized, safety-critical domains remains a significant challenge. Existing evaluation frameworks often rely on heuristic-based metrics that fail to capture domain-specific nuances and other works utilize LLM-as-a-Judge approaches that lack validated alignment with human judgment. This paper introduces RAGalyst, an automated, human-aligned agentic framework designed for the rigorous evaluation of domain-specific RAG systems. RAGalyst features an agentic pipeline that generates high-quality, synthetic question-answering (QA) datasets from source documents, incorporating an agentic filtering step to ensure data fidelity. The framework refines two key LLM-as-a-Judge metrics-Answer Correctness and Answerability-using prompt optimization to achieve a strong correlation with human annotations. Applying this framework to evaluate various RAG components across three distinct domains (military operations, cybersecurity, and bridge engineering), we find that performance is highly context-dependent. No single embedding model, LLM, or hyperparameter configuration proves universally optimal. Additionally, we provide an analysis on the most common low Answer Correctness reasons in RAG. These findings highlight the necessity of a systematic evaluation framework like RAGalyst, which empowers practitioners to uncover domain-specific trade-offs and make informed design choices for building reliable and effective RAG systems. RAGalyst is available on our Github.

With the rapid growth in language processing applications, fairness has emerged as an important consideration in data-driven solutions. Although various fairness definitions have been explored in the recent literature, there is lack of consensus on which metrics most accurately reflect the fairness of a system. In this work, we propose a new formulation : ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY, which measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. The metric attempts to quantify the extent to which a single prediction depends on a protected attribute, where the protected attribute encodes the membership status of an individual in a protected group. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness. It also correlates well with humans' perception of fairness. We conduct experiments on two text classification datasets : JIGSAW TOXICITY, and BIAS IN BIOS, and evaluate the correlations between metrics and manual annotations on whether the model produced a fair outcome. We observe that the proposed fairness metric based on prediction sensitivity is statistically significantly more correlated with human annotation than the existing counterfactual fairness metric.

We introduce CAT, a framework designed to evaluate and visualize the interplay of accuracy and response consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) under controllable input variations, using multiple-choice (MC) benchmarks as a case study. Current evaluation practices primarily focus on model capabilities such as accuracy or benchmark scores and, more recently, measuring consistency is being considered an essential property for deploying LLMs in high-stake, real-world applications. We argue in this paper that although both dimensions should still be evaluated independently, their inter-dependency also need to be considered for a more nuanced evaluation of LLMs. At the core of CAT are the Consistency-Accuracy Relation (CAR) curves, which visualize how model accuracy varies with increasing consistency requirements, as defined by the Minimum-Consistency Accuracy (MCA) metric. We further propose the Consistency-Oriented Robustness Estimate (CORE) index, a global metric that combines the area and shape of the CAR curve to quantify the trade-off between accuracy and consistency. We present a practical demonstration of our framework across a diverse set of generalist and domain-specific LLMs, evaluated on multiple MC benchmarks. We also outline how CAT can be extended beyond MC tasks to support long-form, open-ended evaluations through adaptable scoring functions.

Scholastic trivia competitions test knowledge and intelligence through mastery of question answering. Modern question answering benchmarks are one variant of the Turing test. Specifically, answering a set of questions as well as a human is a minimum bar towards demonstrating human-like intelligence. This paper makes the case that the format of one competition -- where participants can answer in the middle of hearing a question (incremental) -- better differentiates the skill between (human or machine) players. Additionally, merging a sequential decision-making sub-task with question answering (QA) provides a good setting for research in model calibration and opponent modeling. Thus, embedded in this task are three machine learning challenges: (1) factoid QA over thousands of Wikipedia-like answers, (2) calibration of the QA model's confidence scores, and (3) sequential decision-making that incorporates knowledge of the QA model, its calibration, and what the opponent may do. We make two contributions: (1) collecting and curating a large factoid QA dataset and an accompanying gameplay dataset, and (2) developing a model that addresses these three machine learning challenges. In addition to offline evaluation, we pitted our model against some of the most accomplished trivia players in the world in a series of exhibition matches spanning several years. Throughout this paper, we show that collaborations with the vibrant trivia community have contributed to the quality of our dataset, spawned new research directions, and doubled as an exciting way to engage the public with research in machine learning and natural language processing.

Large language models (LLMs) have experienced notable advancements in generating coherent and contextually relevant responses. However, hallucinations - incorrect or unfounded claims - are still prevalent, prompting the creation of automated metrics to detect these in LLM outputs. Our contributions include: introducing ChainPoll, an innovative hallucination detection method that excels compared to its counterparts, and unveiling RealHall, a refined collection of benchmark datasets to assess hallucination detection metrics from recent studies. While creating RealHall, we assessed tasks and datasets from previous hallucination detection studies and observed that many are not suitable for the potent LLMs currently in use. Overcoming this, we opted for four datasets challenging for modern LLMs and pertinent to real-world scenarios. Using RealHall, we conducted a comprehensive comparison of ChainPoll with numerous hallucination metrics from recent studies. Our findings indicate that ChainPoll outperforms in all RealHall benchmarks, achieving an overall AUROC of 0.781. This surpasses the next best theoretical method by 11% and exceeds industry standards by over 23%. Additionally, ChainPoll is cost-effective and offers greater transparency than other metrics. We introduce two novel metrics to assess LLM hallucinations: Adherence and Correctness. Adherence is relevant to Retrieval Augmented Generation workflows, evaluating an LLM's analytical capabilities within given documents and contexts. In contrast, Correctness identifies logical and reasoning errors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) should refuse to answer questions beyond their knowledge. This capability, which we term knowledge-aware refusal, is crucial for factual reliability. However, existing metrics fail to faithfully measure this ability. On the one hand, simple refusal-based metrics are biased by refusal rates and yield inconsistent scores when models exhibit different refusal tendencies. On the other hand, existing calibration metrics are proxy-based, capturing the performance of auxiliary calibration processes rather than the model's actual refusal behavior. In this work, we propose the Refusal Index (RI), a principled metric that measures how accurately LLMs refuse questions they do not know. We define RI as Spearman's rank correlation between refusal probability and error probability. To make RI practically measurable, we design a lightweight two-pass evaluation method that efficiently estimates RI from observed refusal rates across two standard evaluation runs. Extensive experiments across 16 models and 5 datasets demonstrate that RI accurately quantifies a model's intrinsic knowledge-aware refusal capability in factual tasks. Notably, RI remains stable across different refusal rates and provides consistent model rankings independent of a model's overall accuracy and refusal rates. More importantly, RI provides insight into an important but previously overlooked aspect of LLM factuality: while LLMs achieve high accuracy on factual tasks, their refusal behavior can be unreliable and fragile. This finding highlights the need to complement traditional accuracy metrics with the Refusal Index for comprehensive factuality evaluation.

In this paper, we investigate which questions are challenging for retrieval-based Question Answering (QA). We (i) propose retrieval complexity (RC), a novel metric conditioned on the completeness of retrieved documents, which measures the difficulty of answering questions, and (ii) propose an unsupervised pipeline to measure RC given an arbitrary retrieval system. Our proposed pipeline measures RC more accurately than alternative estimators, including LLMs, on six challenging QA benchmarks. Further investigation reveals that RC scores strongly correlate with both QA performance and expert judgment across five of the six studied benchmarks, indicating that RC is an effective measure of question difficulty. Subsequent categorization of high-RC questions shows that they span a broad set of question shapes, including multi-hop, compositional, and temporal QA, indicating that RC scores can categorize a new subset of complex questions. Our system can also have a major impact on retrieval-based systems by helping to identify more challenging questions on existing datasets.

We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.

A new generation of AI models generates step-by-step reasoning text before producing an answer. This text appears to offer a human-readable window into their computation process, and is increasingly relied upon for transparency and interpretability. However, it is unclear whether human understanding of this text matches the model's actual computational process. In this paper, we investigate a necessary condition for correspondence: the ability of humans to identify which steps in a reasoning text causally influence later steps. We evaluated humans on this ability by composing questions based on counterfactual measurements and found a significant discrepancy: participant accuracy was only 29.3%, barely above chance (25%), and remained low (42%) even when evaluating the majority vote on questions with high agreement. Our results reveal a fundamental gap between how humans interpret reasoning texts and how models use it, challenging its utility as a simple interpretability tool. We argue that reasoning texts should be treated as an artifact to be investigated, not taken at face value, and that understanding the non-human ways these models use language is a critical research direction.

Large language models (LLMs) often present answers with high apparent confidence despite lacking an explicit mechanism for reasoning about certainty or truth. While existing benchmarks primarily evaluate single-turn accuracy, truthfulness or confidence calibration, they do not capture how models behave when their responses are challenged in interactive settings. We introduce the Certainty Robustness Benchmark, a two-turn evaluation framework that measures how LLMs balance stability and adaptability under self-challenging prompts such as uncertainty ("Are you sure?") and explicit contradiction ("You are wrong!"), alongside numeric confidence elicitation. Using 200 reasoning and mathematics questions from LiveBench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs and distinguish between justified self-corrections and unjustified answer changes. Our results reveal substantial differences in interactive reliability that are not explained by baseline accuracy alone: some models abandon correct answers under conversational pressure, while others demonstrate strong resistance to challenge and better alignment between confidence and correctness. These findings identify certainty robustness as a distinct and critical dimension of LLM evaluation, with important implications for alignment, trustworthiness and real-world deployment.

In this paper, we propose QACE, a new metric based on Question Answering for Caption Evaluation. QACE generates questions on the evaluated caption and checks its content by asking the questions on either the reference caption or the source image. We first develop QACE-Ref that compares the answers of the evaluated caption to its reference, and report competitive results with the state-of-the-art metrics. To go further, we propose QACE-Img, which asks the questions directly on the image, instead of reference. A Visual-QA system is necessary for QACE-Img. Unfortunately, the standard VQA models are framed as a classification among only a few thousand categories. Instead, we propose Visual-T5, an abstractive VQA system. The resulting metric, QACE-Img is multi-modal, reference-less, and explainable. Our experiments show that QACE-Img compares favorably w.r.t. other reference-less metrics. We will release the pre-trained models to compute QACE.

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.

Evaluating language models and AI agents remains fundamentally challenging because static benchmarks fail to capture real-world uncertainty, distribution shift, and the gap between isolated task accuracy and human-aligned decision-making under evolving conditions. This paper introduces TruthTensor, a novel, reproducible evaluation paradigm that measures reasoning models not only as prediction engines but as human-imitation systems operating in socially-grounded, high-entropy environments. Building on forward-looking, contamination-free tasks, our framework anchors evaluation to live prediction markets and combines probabilistic scoring to provide a holistic view of model behavior. TruthTensor complements traditional correctness metrics with drift-centric diagnostics and explicit robustness checks for reproducibility. It specify human vs. automated evaluation roles, annotation protocols, and statistical testing procedures to ensure interpretability and replicability of results. In experiments across 500+ real markets (political, economic, cultural, technological), TruthTensor demonstrates that models with similar forecast accuracy can diverge markedly in calibration, drift, and risk-sensitivity, underscoring the need to evaluate models along multiple axes (accuracy, calibration, narrative stability, cost, and resource efficiency). TruthTensor therefore operationalizes modern evaluation best practices, clear hypothesis framing, careful metric selection, transparent compute/cost reporting, human-in-the-loop validation, and open, versioned evaluation contracts, to produce defensible assessments of LLMs in real-world decision contexts. We publicly released TruthTensor at https://truthtensor.com.

As of September 2023, ChatGPT correctly answers "what is 7+8" with 15, but when asked "7+8=15, True or False" it responds with "False". This inconsistency between generating and validating an answer is prevalent in language models (LMs) and erodes trust. In this paper, we propose a framework for measuring the consistency between generation and validation (which we call generator-validator consistency, or GV-consistency), finding that even GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LM, is GV-consistent only 76% of the time. To improve the consistency of LMs, we propose to finetune on the filtered generator and validator responses that are GV-consistent, and call this approach consistency fine-tuning. We find that this approach improves GV-consistency of Alpaca-30B from 60% to 93%, and the improvement extrapolates to unseen tasks and domains (e.g., GV-consistency for positive style transfers extrapolates to unseen styles like humor). In addition to improving consistency, consistency fine-tuning improves both generator quality and validator accuracy without using any labeled data. Evaluated across 6 tasks, including math questions, knowledge-intensive QA, and instruction following, our method improves the generator quality by 16% and the validator accuracy by 6.3% across all tasks.

In recent years, the research focus of large language models (LLMs) and agents has shifted increasingly from demonstrating novel capabilities to complex reasoning and tackling challenging tasks. However, existing evaluations focus mainly on math/code contests or general tasks, while existing multi-domain academic benchmarks lack sufficient reasoning depth, leaving the field without a rigorous benchmark for high-level reasoning. To fill this gap, we introduce the Acadreason benchmark, designed to evaluate the ability of LLMs and agents to acquire and reason over academic knowledge. It consists of 50 expert-annotated academic problems across five high-reasoning domains, including computer science, economics, law, mathematics, and philosophy. All questions are sourced from top-tier publications in recent years and undergo rigorous annotation and quality control to ensure they are both challenging and answerable. We conduct systematic evaluations of over 10 mainstream LLMs and agents. The results show that most LLMs scored below 20 points, with even the cutting-edge GPT-5 achieving only 16 points. While agents achieved higher scores, none exceeded 40 points. This demonstrates the current capability gap between LLMs and agents in super-intelligent academic research tasks and highlights the challenges of Acadreason.

The Scholarly Question Answering over Linked Data (Scholarly QALD) at The International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) 2023 challenge presents two sub-tasks to tackle question answering (QA) over knowledge graphs (KGs). We answer the KGQA over DBLP (DBLP-QUAD) task by proposing a neuro-symbolic (NS) framework based on PSYCHIC, an extractive QA model capable of identifying the query and entities related to a KG question. Our system achieved a F1 score of 00.18% on question answering and came in third place for entity linking (EL) with a score of 71.00%.

Large language models show improved downstream task performance when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness (independent of the final answer) is difficult without reliable methods for automatic evaluation. We simply do not know how often the stated reasoning steps actually support the final end task predictions. In this work, we present ROSCOE, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics. To evaluate ROSCOE against baseline metrics, we design a typology of reasoning errors and collect synthetic and human evaluation scores on commonly used reasoning datasets. In contrast with existing metrics, ROSCOE can measure semantic consistency, logicality, informativeness, fluency, and factuality - among other traits - by leveraging properties of step-by-step rationales. We empirically verify the strength of our metrics on five human annotated and six programmatically perturbed diagnostics datasets - covering a diverse set of tasks that require reasoning skills and show that ROSCOE can consistently outperform baseline metrics.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

State-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs have progressed from struggling on proof-based Olympiad problems to solving most of the IMO 2025 problems, with leading systems reportedly handling 5 of 6 problems. Given this progress, we assess how well these models can grade proofs: detecting errors, judging their severity, and assigning fair scores beyond binary correctness. We study proof-analysis capabilities using a corpus of 90 Gemini 2.5 Pro-generated solutions that we grade on a 1-4 scale with detailed error annotations, and on MathArena solution sets for IMO/USAMO 2025 scored on a 0-7 scale. Our analysis shows that models can reliably flag incorrect (including subtly incorrect) solutions but exhibit calibration gaps in how partial credit is assigned. To address this, we introduce agentic workflows that extract and analyze reference solutions and automatically derive problem-specific rubrics for a multi-step grading process. We instantiate and compare different design choices for the grading workflows, and evaluate their trade-offs. Across our annotated corpus and MathArena, our proposed workflows achieve higher agreement with human grades and more consistent handling of partial credit across metrics. We release all code, data, and prompts/logs to facilitate future research.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark--CareQA--, with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations --Relaxed Perplexity-- to mitigate the identified limitations.

While models for Visual Question Answering (VQA) have steadily improved over the years, interacting with one quickly reveals that these models lack consistency. For instance, if a model answers "red" to "What color is the balloon?", it might answer "no" if asked, "Is the balloon red?". These responses violate simple notions of entailment and raise questions about how effectively VQA models ground language. In this work, we introduce a dataset, ConVQA, and metrics that enable quantitative evaluation of consistency in VQA. For a given observable fact in an image (e.g. the balloon's color), we generate a set of logically consistent question-answer (QA) pairs (e.g. Is the balloon red?) and also collect a human-annotated set of common-sense based consistent QA pairs (e.g. Is the balloon the same color as tomato sauce?). Further, we propose a consistency-improving data augmentation module, a Consistency Teacher Module (CTM). CTM automatically generates entailed (or similar-intent) questions for a source QA pair and fine-tunes the VQA model if the VQA's answer to the entailed question is consistent with the source QA pair. We demonstrate that our CTM-based training improves the consistency of VQA models on the ConVQA datasets and is a strong baseline for further research.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has demonstrated remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks. However, a significant discrepancy persists between benchmark performances and real-world applications. We identify this gap as primarily stemming from current evaluation protocols and metrics, which inadequately capture the full spectrum of LLM capabilities, particularly in complex reasoning tasks where both accuracy and consistency are crucial. This work makes two key contributions. First, we introduce G-Pass@k, a novel evaluation metric that provides a continuous assessment of model performance across multiple sampling attempts, quantifying both the model's peak performance potential and its stability. Second, we present LiveMathBench, a dynamic benchmark comprising challenging, contemporary mathematical problems designed to minimize data leakage risks during evaluation. Through extensive experiments using G-Pass@k on state-of-the-art LLMs with LiveMathBench, we provide comprehensive insights into both their maximum capabilities and operational consistency. Our findings reveal substantial room for improvement in LLMs' "realistic" reasoning capabilities, highlighting the need for more robust evaluation methods. The benchmark and detailed results are available at: https://github.com/open-compass/GPassK.

Scientific question answering (SQA) is an important task aimed at answering questions based on papers. However, current SQA datasets have limited reasoning types and neglect the relevance between tables and text, creating a significant gap with real scenarios. To address these challenges, we propose a QA benchmark for scientific tables and text with diverse reasoning types (SciTaT). To cover more reasoning types, we summarize various reasoning types from real-world questions. To involve both tables and text, we require the questions to incorporate tables and text as much as possible. Based on SciTaT, we propose a strong baseline (CaR), which combines various reasoning methods to address different reasoning types and process tables and text at the same time. CaR brings average improvements of 12.9% over other baselines on SciTaT, validating its effectiveness. Error analysis reveals the challenges of SciTaT, such as complex numerical calculations and domain knowledge.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

The year 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework for analytic translation quality evaluation. The MQM error typology has been widely used by practitioners in the translation and localization industry and has served as the basis for many derivative projects. The annual Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) shared tasks on both human and automatic translation quality evaluations used the MQM error typology. The metric stands on two pillars: error typology and the scoring model. The scoring model calculates the quality score from annotation data, detailing how to convert error type and severity counts into numeric scores to determine if the content meets specifications. Previously, only the raw scoring model had been published. This April, the MQM Council published the Linear Calibrated Scoring Model, officially presented herein, along with the Non-Linear Scoring Model, which had not been published before. This paper details the latest MQM developments and presents a universal approach to translation quality measurement across three sample size ranges. It also explains why Statistical Quality Control should be used for very small sample sizes, starting from a single sentence.

Visual events are a composition of temporal actions involving actors spatially interacting with objects. When developing computer vision models that can reason about compositional spatio-temporal events, we need benchmarks that can analyze progress and uncover shortcomings. Existing video question answering benchmarks are useful, but they often conflate multiple sources of error into one accuracy metric and have strong biases that models can exploit, making it difficult to pinpoint model weaknesses. We present Action Genome Question Answering (AGQA), a new benchmark for compositional spatio-temporal reasoning. AGQA contains 192M unbalanced question answer pairs for 9.6K videos. We also provide a balanced subset of 3.9M question answer pairs, 3 orders of magnitude larger than existing benchmarks, that minimizes bias by balancing the answer distributions and types of question structures. Although human evaluators marked 86.02% of our question-answer pairs as correct, the best model achieves only 47.74% accuracy. In addition, AGQA introduces multiple training/test splits to test for various reasoning abilities, including generalization to novel compositions, to indirect references, and to more compositional steps. Using AGQA, we evaluate modern visual reasoning systems, demonstrating that the best models barely perform better than non-visual baselines exploiting linguistic biases and that none of the existing models generalize to novel compositions unseen during training.

This position paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics, which diminishes its practical value, trustworthiness, and ability to meet regulatory requirements. Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models. A central issue is the absence of a ground truth for explanations, complicating comparisons across various XAI approaches. To address these challenges, we advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics. These metrics should be resistant to manipulation, relevant to each use case, and based on human judgment and real-world applicability. We also recommend creating domain-specific evaluation benchmarks that align with the user and regulatory needs of sectors such as healthcare and finance. By encouraging collaboration among academia, industry, and regulators, we can create standards that balance flexibility and consistency, ensuring XAI explanations are meaningful, trustworthy, and compliant with evolving regulations.

Posing reading comprehension as a generation problem provides a great deal of flexibility, allowing for open-ended questions with few restrictions on possible answers. However, progress is impeded by existing generation metrics, which rely on token overlap and are agnostic to the nuances of reading comprehension. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for training and evaluating generative reading comprehension metrics: MOdeling Correctness with Human Annotations. MOCHA contains 40K human judgement scores on model outputs from 6 diverse question answering datasets and an additional set of minimal pairs for evaluation. Using MOCHA, we train a Learned Evaluation metric for Reading Comprehension, LERC, to mimic human judgement scores. LERC outperforms baseline metrics by 10 to 36 absolute Pearson points on held-out annotations. When we evaluate robustness on minimal pairs, LERC achieves 80% accuracy, outperforming baselines by 14 to 26 absolute percentage points while leaving significant room for improvement. MOCHA presents a challenging problem for developing accurate and robust generative reading comprehension metrics.

Traditional evaluations of multimodal large language models (LLMs) have been limited by their focus on single-image reasoning, failing to assess crucial aspects like contextual understanding, reasoning stability, and uncertainty calibration. This study addresses these limitations by introducing a novel benchmark that integrates multi-image reasoning tasks with rejection-based evaluation and positional bias detection. To evaluate these dimensions, we further introduce entropy as a novel metric for quantifying reasoning consistency across reordered answer variants. We applied this benchmark to assess Grok 3, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-o1, Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental, DeepSeek Janus models, Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct, QVQ-72B-Preview, and Pixtral 12B across eight visual reasoning tasks, including difference spotting and diagram interpretation. Our findings reveal ChatGPT-o1 leading in overall accuracy (82.5\%) and rejection accuracy (70.0\%), closely followed by Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental (70.8\%). QVQ-72B-Preview demonstrated superior rejection accuracy (85.5\%). Notably, Pixtral 12B (51.7\%) showed promise in specific domains, while Janus models exhibited challenges in bias and uncertainty calibration, reflected in low rejection accuracies and high entropy scores. High entropy scores in Janus models (Janus 7B: 0.8392, Janus 1B: 0.787) underscore their susceptibility to positional bias and unstable reasoning, contrasting with the low entropy and robust reasoning of ChatGPT models. The study further demonstrates that model size is not the sole determinant of performance, as evidenced by Grok 3 underperformance despite its substantial parameter count. By employing multi-image contexts, rejection mechanisms, and entropy-based consistency metrics, this benchmark sets a new standard for evaluating multimodal LLMs, enabling a more robust and reliable assessment of next-generation AI systems.

Reasoning LLMs such as OpenAI o1, o3 and DeepSeek R1 have made significant progress in mathematics and coding, yet find challenging advanced tasks such as International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) combinatorics problems, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) puzzles, and Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) questions. We use a diverse inference approach that combines multiple models and methods at test time. We find that verifying mathematics and code problems, and rejection sampling on other problems is simple and effective. We automatically verify correctness of solutions to IMO problems by Lean, and ARC puzzles by code, and find that best-of-N effectively answers HLE questions. Our approach increases answer accuracy on IMO combinatorics problems from 33.3% to 77.8%, accuracy on HLE questions from 8% to 37%, and solves 80% of ARC puzzles that 948 humans could not and 26.5% of ARC puzzles that o3 high compute does not. Test-time simulations, reinforcement learning, and meta-learning with inference feedback improve generalization by adapting agent graph representations and varying prompts, code, and datasets. Our approach is reliable, robust, and scalable, and in the spirit of reproducible research, we will make it publicly available upon publication.

Most research on question answering focuses on the pre-deployment stage; i.e., building an accurate model for deployment. In this paper, we ask the question: Can we improve QA systems further post-deployment based on user interactions? We focus on two kinds of improvements: 1) improving the QA system's performance itself, and 2) providing the model with the ability to explain the correctness or incorrectness of an answer. We collect a retrieval-based QA dataset, FeedbackQA, which contains interactive feedback from users. We collect this dataset by deploying a base QA system to crowdworkers who then engage with the system and provide feedback on the quality of its answers. The feedback contains both structured ratings and unstructured natural language explanations. We train a neural model with this feedback data that can generate explanations and re-score answer candidates. We show that feedback data not only improves the accuracy of the deployed QA system but also other stronger non-deployed systems. The generated explanations also help users make informed decisions about the correctness of answers. Project page: https://mcgill-nlp.github.io/feedbackqa/

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) have led to strong performance in open-domain question answering (QA). However, existing models still struggle with questions that admit multiple valid answers. Standard QA benchmarks, which typically assume a single gold answer, overlook this reality and thus produce inappropriate training signals. Existing attempts to handle ambiguity often rely on costly manual annotation, which is difficult to scale to multi-hop datasets such as HotpotQA and MuSiQue. In this paper, we present A^2Search, an annotation-free, end-to-end training framework to recognize and handle ambiguity. At its core is an automated pipeline that detects ambiguous questions and gathers alternative answers via trajectory sampling and evidence verification. The model is then optimized with RL using a carefully designed AnsF1 reward, which naturally accommodates multiple answers. Experiments on eight open-domain QA benchmarks demonstrate that A^2Search achieves new state-of-the-art performance. With only a single rollout, A^2Search-7B yields an average AnsF1@1 score of 48.4% across four multi-hop benchmarks, outperforming all strong baselines, including the substantially larger ReSearch-32B (46.2%). Extensive analyses further show that A^2Search resolves ambiguity and generalizes across benchmarks, highlighting that embracing ambiguity is essential for building more reliable QA systems. Our code, data, and model weights can be found at https://github.com/zfj1998/A2Search

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning has largely focused on elementary problems, competition-style questions, or formal theorem proving, leaving graduate-level and computational mathematics relatively underexplored. We introduce CompMath-MCQ, a new benchmark dataset for assessing LLMs on advanced mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice setting. The dataset consists of 1{,}500 originally authored questions by professors of graduate-level courses, covering topics including Linear Algebra, Numerical Optimization, Vector Calculus, Probability, and Python-based scientific computing. Three option choices are provided for each question, with exactly one of them being correct. To ensure the absence of data leakage, all questions are newly created and not sourced from existing materials. The validity of questions is verified through a procedure based on cross-LLM disagreement, followed by manual expert review. By adopting a multiple-choice format, our dataset enables objective, reproducible, and bias-free evaluation through lm_eval library. Baseline results with state-of-the-art LLMs indicate that advanced computational mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge. We release CompMath-MCQ at the following link: https://github.com/biancaraimondi/CompMath-MCQ.git

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing information retrieval, with chatbots becoming an important source for answering user queries. As by their design, LLMs prioritize generating correct answers, the value of highly plausible yet incorrect answers (candidate answers) tends to be overlooked. However, such answers can still prove useful, for example, they can play a crucial role in tasks like Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and QA Robustness Assessment (QARA). Existing QA datasets primarily focus on correct answers without explicit consideration of the plausibility of other candidate answers, limiting opportunity for more nuanced evaluations of models. To address this gap, we introduce PlausibleQA, a large-scale dataset comprising 10,000 questions and 100,000 candidate answers, each annotated with plausibility scores and justifications for their selection. Additionally, the dataset includes 900,000 justifications for pairwise comparisons between candidate answers, further refining plausibility assessments. We evaluate PlausibleQA through human assessments and empirical experiments, demonstrating its utility in MCQA and QARA analysis. Our findings show that plausibility-aware approaches are effective for MCQA distractor generation and QARA. We release PlausibleQA as a resource for advancing QA research and enhancing LLM performance in distinguishing plausible distractors from correct answers.

The global economy is increasingly dependent on knowledge workers to meet the needs of public and private organizations. While there is no single definition of knowledge work, organizations and industry groups still attempt to measure individuals' capability to engage in it. The most comprehensive assessment of capability readiness for professional knowledge workers is the Uniform CPA Examination developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In this paper, we experimentally evaluate OpenAI's `text-davinci-003` and prior versions of GPT on both a sample Regulation (REG) exam and an assessment of over 200 multiple-choice questions based on the AICPA Blueprints for legal, financial, accounting, technology, and ethical tasks. First, we find that `text-davinci-003` achieves a correct rate of 14.4% on a sample REG exam section, significantly underperforming human capabilities on quantitative reasoning in zero-shot prompts. Second, `text-davinci-003` appears to be approaching human-level performance on the Remembering & Understanding and Application skill levels in the Exam absent calculation. For best prompt and parameters, the model answers 57.6% of questions correctly, significantly better than the 25% guessing rate, and its top two answers are correct 82.1% of the time, indicating strong non-entailment. Finally, we find that recent generations of GPT-3 demonstrate material improvements on this assessment, rising from 30% for `text-davinci-001` to 57% for `text-davinci-003`. These findings strongly suggest that large language models have the potential to transform the quality and efficiency of future knowledge work.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

The Test and Measurement domain, known for its strict requirements for accuracy and efficiency, is increasingly adopting Generative AI technologies to enhance the performance of data analysis, automation, and decision-making processes. Among these, Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant promise for advancing automation and precision in testing. However, the evaluation of LLMs in this specialized area remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we introduce the Test and Measurement Intelligence Quotient (TMIQ), a benchmark designed to quantitatively assess LLMs across a wide range of electronic engineering tasks. TMIQ offers a comprehensive set of scenarios and metrics for detailed evaluation, including SCPI command matching accuracy, ranked response evaluation, Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (CoT), and the impact of output formatting variations required by LLMs on performance. In testing various LLMs, our findings indicate varying levels of proficiency, with exact SCPI command match accuracy ranging from around 56% to 73%, and ranked matching first-position scores achieving around 33% for the best-performing model. We also assess token usage, cost-efficiency, and response times, identifying trade-offs between accuracy and operational efficiency. Additionally, we present a command-line interface (CLI) tool that enables users to generate datasets using the same methodology, allowing for tailored assessments of LLMs. TMIQ and the CLI tool provide a rigorous, reproducible means of evaluating LLMs for production environments, facilitating continuous monitoring and identifying strengths and areas for improvement, and driving innovation in their selections for applications within the Test and Measurement industry.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has marked a significant advancement in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Previous studies have developed various extensions of CoT, which focus primarily on enhancing end-task performance. In addition, there has been research on assessing the quality of reasoning chains in CoT. This raises an intriguing question: Is it possible to predict the accuracy of LLM outputs by scrutinizing the reasoning chains they generate? To answer this research question, we introduce a benchmark, R2PE, designed specifically to explore the relationship between reasoning chains and performance in various reasoning tasks spanning five different domains. This benchmark aims to measure the falsehood of the final output of LLMs based on the reasoning steps. To make full use of information in multiple reasoning chains, we propose the process discernibility score (PDS) framework that beats the answer-checking baseline by a large margin. Concretely, this resulted in an average of 5.1% increase in the F1 score across all 45 subsets within R2PE. We further demonstrate our PDS's efficacy in advancing open-domain QA accuracy. Data and code are available at https://github.com/XinXU-USTC/R2PE.

We present the ARC-DA dataset, a direct-answer ("open response", "freeform") version of the ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) multiple-choice dataset. While ARC has been influential in the community, its multiple-choice format is unrepresentative of real-world questions, and multiple choice formats can be particularly susceptible to artifacts. The ARC-DA dataset addresses these concerns by converting questions to direct-answer format using a combination of crowdsourcing and expert review. The resulting dataset contains 2985 questions with a total of 8436 valid answers (questions typically have more than one valid answer). ARC-DA is one of the first DA datasets of natural questions that often require reasoning, and where appropriate question decompositions are not evident from the questions themselves. We describe the conversion approach taken, appropriate evaluation metrics, and several strong models. Although high, the best scores (81% GENIE, 61.4% F1, 63.2% ROUGE-L) still leave considerable room for improvement. In addition, the dataset provides a natural setting for new research on explanation, as many questions require reasoning to construct answers. We hope the dataset spurs further advances in complex question-answering by the community. ARC-DA is available at https://allenai.org/data/arc-da

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has been proposed as a transparency mechanism for large language models in safety-critical deployments, yet its effectiveness depends on faithfulness (whether models accurately verbalize the factors that actually influence their outputs), a property that prior evaluations have examined in only two proprietary models, finding acknowledgment rates as low as 25% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 39% for DeepSeek-R1. To extend this evaluation across the open-weight ecosystem, this study tests 12 open-weight reasoning models spanning 9 architectural families (7B-685B parameters) on 498 multiple-choice questions from MMLU and GPQA Diamond, injecting six categories of reasoning hints (sycophancy, consistency, visual pattern, metadata, grader hacking, and unethical information) and measuring the rate at which models acknowledge hint influence in their CoT when hints successfully alter answers. Across 41,832 inference runs, overall faithfulness rates range from 39.7% (Seed-1.6-Flash) to 89.9% (DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale) across model families, with consistency hints (35.5%) and sycophancy hints (53.9%) exhibiting the lowest acknowledgment rates. Training methodology and model family predict faithfulness more strongly than parameter count, and keyword-based analysis reveals a striking gap between thinking-token acknowledgment (approximately 87.5%) and answer-text acknowledgment (approximately 28.6%), suggesting that models internally recognize hint influence but systematically suppress this acknowledgment in their outputs. These findings carry direct implications for the viability of CoT monitoring as a safety mechanism and suggest that faithfulness is not a fixed property of reasoning models but varies systematically with architecture, training method, and the nature of the influencing cue.

In current NLP research, large-scale language models and their abilities are widely being discussed. Some recent works have also found notable failures of these models. Often these failure examples involve complex reasoning abilities. This work focuses on a simple commonsense ability, reasoning about when an action (or its effect) is feasible. To this end, we introduce FeasibilityQA, a question-answering dataset involving binary classification (BCQ) and multi-choice multi-correct questions (MCQ) that test understanding of feasibility. We show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-3, GPT-2, and T5 struggle to answer the feasibility questions correctly. Specifically, on MCQ and BCQ questions, GPT-3 achieves an accuracy of just (19%, 62%) and (25%, 64%) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. We also evaluate models by providing relevant knowledge statements required to answer the question. We find that the additional knowledge leads to a 7% gain in performance, but the overall performance still remains low. These results make one wonder how much commonsense knowledge about action feasibility is encoded in state-of-the-art models and how well they can reason about it.

Recent studies on large language model (LLM) reasoning capabilities have demonstrated promising improvements in model performance by leveraging a lengthy thinking process and additional computational resources during inference, primarily in tasks involving mathematical reasoning (Muennighoff et al., 2025). However, it remains uncertain if longer reasoning chains inherently enhance factual accuracy, particularly beyond mathematical contexts. In this work, we thoroughly examine LLM reasoning within complex open-domain question-answering (QA) scenarios. We initially distill reasoning traces from advanced, large-scale reasoning models (QwQ-32B and DeepSeek-R1-671B), then fine-tune a variety of models ranging from smaller, instruction-tuned variants to larger architectures based on Qwen2.5. To enrich reasoning traces, we introduce factual information from knowledge graphs in the form of paths into our reasoning traces. Our experimental setup includes four baseline approaches and six different instruction-tuned models evaluated across a benchmark of six datasets, encompassing over 22.6K questions. Overall, we carry out 168 experimental runs and analyze approximately 1.7 million reasoning traces. Our findings indicate that, within a single run, smaller reasoning models achieve noticeable improvements in factual accuracy compared to their original instruction-tuned counterparts. Moreover, our analysis demonstrates that adding test-time compute and token budgets factual accuracy consistently improves by 2-8%, further confirming the effectiveness of test-time scaling for enhancing performance and consequently improving reasoning accuracy in open-domain QA tasks. We release all the experimental artifacts for further research.

We introduce a professionally translated extension of the TruthfulQA benchmark designed to evaluate truthfulness in Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish. Truthfulness evaluations of large language models (LLMs) have primarily been conducted in English. However, the ability of LLMs to maintain truthfulness across languages remains under-explored. Our study evaluates 12 state-of-the-art open LLMs, comparing base and instruction-tuned models using human evaluation, multiple-choice metrics, and LLM-as-a-Judge scoring. Our findings reveal that, while LLMs perform best in English and worst in Basque (the lowest-resourced language), overall truthfulness discrepancies across languages are smaller than anticipated. Furthermore, we show that LLM-as-a-Judge correlates more closely with human judgments than multiple-choice metrics, and that informativeness plays a critical role in truthfulness assessment. Our results also indicate that machine translation provides a viable approach for extending truthfulness benchmarks to additional languages, offering a scalable alternative to professional translation. Finally, we observe that universal knowledge questions are better handled across languages than context- and time-dependent ones, highlighting the need for truthfulness evaluations that account for cultural and temporal variability. Dataset and code are publicly available under open licenses.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) often rely on generating intermediate reasoning steps to enhance accuracy. However, little work has examined how reasoning utility contributes to the final answer's correctness. Due to the stochastic nature of autoregressive generation, generating more context does not guarantee increased confidence in the answer. If we could predict, during generation, whether a reasoning step will be useful, we could stop early or prune ineffective steps, avoiding distractions in the final decision. We present an oracle study on MATH dataset, using Qwen2.5-32B and GPT-4o to generate reasoning chains, and then employing a separate model (Qwen3-8B) to quantify the utility of these chains for final accuracy. Specifically, we measure the model's uncertainty on the answer span Y at each reasoning step using conditional entropy (expected negative log-likelihood over the vocabulary) with context expanding step by step. Our results show a clear pattern: conditional entropy that decreases over steps is strongly associated with correct answers, whereas flat or increasing entropy often results in wrong answers. We also corroborate that incorrect reasoning paths tend to be longer than correct ones, suggesting that longer reasoning does not necessarily yield better outcomes. These findings serve as a foundation to inspire future work on designing efficient reasoning pipelines that detect and avoid unproductive reasoning early.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.